Memeorandum

May 25, 2012

Barack, Youthful Leader!

Up to now Barack Obama's youth has been a cipher. The future President,Nobel Prize Winner and world-changer was not a student council president club president, or much of a presence at all in high school, Occidental, or Columbia.

But now David Maraniss, in his new Barry bio, digs up compelling evidence of Barack as a young leader. We are with the 'Choom Gang', a group of highschool potheads:

The first Obama-inspired trend: “Total Absorption” or “TA”.

“TA was the opposite of Bill Clinton’s claim that as a Rhodes scholar at Oxford he smoked dope but never inhaled,” explains Maraniss. Here’s how it worked: If you exhaled prematurely when you were with the Choom Gang, “you were assessed a penalty and your turn was skipped the next time the joint came around.”

As one of Obama’s old high school buddies tells Maraniss: “Wasting good bud smoke was not tolerated.”

Another Obama innovation: “Roof Hits.”

“When they were chooming in a car all the windows had to be rolled up so no smoke blew out and went to waste; when the pot was gone, they tilted their heads back and sucked in the last bit of smoke from the ceiling.”

Maraniss also says Obama was known for his “Interceptions”: “When a joint was making the rounds, he often elbowed his way in, out of turn, shouted ‘Intercepted!,’ and took an extra hit.”

I think some of that has carried over to the White House. Of course, "TA" is now "Total Self-Absorption".

to Bill Maher, John Stewart and the rest of them, these stories about Obama will be all the more reason for them to worship him. They will think it is so cool, far be it from them to be fuddie-duddies.

Yes, we did, and that's why I never, never, ever have been able to understand the people who voted for him who just 'thought' he'd be a good president. I'd read or hear people say that and I'd think "don't you all read?" He didn't have one important event or contribution or piece of statesmanship to put on his CV. Aargh, makes me want to scream.

Marijuana is something lots of Americans have smoked. It wasn't a big deal when Bill Clinton acknowledged "doing it at Oxford." He also screwed around a lot. Since when has that been a handicap?

As to the press, it's a good idea for Obama to be considered "beatable." Why? Because it makes for a more interesting race. Low turnout will be a problem for both sides. Make the race (which isn't) ... interesting ...

I hope Maraniss mentions who paid for BO's weed, because it certainly doesn't look like he was interested or capable of handling a job. His drug dealer was probably the only small business owner he's ever known.

My childhood best friend was in Barry's Punahou class for 3 years, through Junior year. Now I'm just as glad they only met in JV basketball tryouts (my friend was the last one cut). But like me, he's never smoked a regular cigarette, so he wasn't cool enough for O.

In July 2008 Factcheck.org debunked an Obama ad's claim that "he worked his way through college and Harvard Law" When challenged, his campaign only came up with one summer job "in construction" (ha!) and one fictional one in a big Chicago law firm, so it's unlikely he found time between stupors in hs to work.

Right, what was I thinking, it's ironic in light of how the subject of the last thread, came to public notice, he only had to allege
that he had sold pot to Quayle, and that made up for a whole host of criminal actions,

So Obama's leadership skills were developed in in high school in determining the rules of pot smoking with a bunch of slacker, dumb ass shitheads. This is where his genius was first discovered and stoned high school boys could marvel at his awesomeness and brilliance. He found that he could bully, laugh at, and dominate them. Sounds like the blue print of his presidency. Too bad the entire country is not cool, arrested development, misogynistic, lazy bums like the Democratic party and the press then everyone would admire him.

“TA was the opposite of Bill Clinton’s claim that as a Rhodes scholar at Oxford he smoked dope but never inhaled,” explains Maraniss. Here’s how it worked: If you exhaled prematurely when you were with the Choom Gang, “you were assessed a penalty and your turn was skipped the next time the joint came around.”

Can we lay to rest the notion that extreme potheads don't do well later in life?

Good.

Smoking a substance that promotes calm isn't as scary as a gang of males assaulting a homosexual.Unless hatred,bigotry and intolerence are qualities you admire.

In the dept of the calculus may not work out as planned in predicting tax consumers will vote Dem this year in the Pres race, the angry teachers have started talking to each other and sharing my website. My guess is the all-powerful Gypsy Principals said things in last day of planning periods meetings on the way things would work next year. The teachers went out for drinks to complain. That's what yesterday's blog traffic patterns would indicate.

There are a lot of teachers in this country and they are very angry about being told what they can't do in the classroom that they know works. They are angry that the most mediocre quickly go into admin for more money and become their bosses. Telling them what they may not do. The good ones are taking it as the lousy teachers are ganging up on the good ones for profit.

Engrenage relies on the gears working together but being widely perceived as separate. When you can accurately describe the engrenage and how it works, it merely heightens the sense of betrayal for everyone interacting with those gears in education. Or climate change. Or attack business as "enriching the owners."

Faux attacks designed to mislead from the accurate portrayal of Stanley Kurtz in Radical in Chief. Now that will be a good sequel for August at this rate.

I'll wager on tall odds not a single one of you identity conservatives care one iota that the "MSM" never even bothered to get to the bottom of whether GW Bush ever used cocaine. He simply refused to answer the question and that was THE END OF THE STORY.
Talk about double standards...

The Politico piece was redolent of the stench of garbage which characterizes the vast majority of its work product. Obama has not "stumbled badly out of the gate", he's still in the gate and facing the wrong way. It appears that Mob Obama (there ain't no 'Team' involved) did not test the effect of Perry and Gingrich's attack upon Bain. The T1000 Group certainly did and the Languid Response Team effort might even have been purposeful in holding back in order to test the effectiveness of the attack. I thought they were blindsided but now I'm having doubts.

Allen and Vandehei also neglect to contemplate the possibility the negative response from Democrats who will be damaged by the President's "It's either Bain Capitalism or Obamunism" was coordinated in a manner designed to send the President a public message corresponding to the private disapproval for what will prove to be both a tactical and strategic failure.

I've been totally underwhelmed by the quality of political reporting this year and this article was no improvement. They're murdering trillions of innocent pixels to no purpose.

Just a thought about the Kenyan bio story..maybe Obama wasn't the one to write & check the bio. Maybe he didn't change it in 2007...maybe the real author did all of that. Were Dystel & Goderich in touch with Ayers? We know Dystel represented Rudd. Even Obama seems unfamiliar with "Dreams From My Father".

Jane: An identity conservative is a person who's primary interest in politics is derived from a desire to justify and rationalize their failure to succeed socially or economically or politically, or, indeed, to have failed at all three.
The identity conservative doesn't think liberals are misguided or wrong, she thinks they are "crazy" and "dangerous."
Identity conservatives refuse to distinguish between the many varieties of liberals and, instead, compulsively resort to the convenience of defining all liberal views and actions as of a piece with those of the least intelligent, least logically consistent and least plausible elements within liberalism.
I do the opposite. I draw a distinction between ordinary conservatives -- whose views are important, well considered and internally consistent -- and identity conservatives, whose views are only consistent with their desire to ameliorate a deeply entrenched sense of intellectual and moral inferiority...

--I do the opposite. I draw a distinction between ordinary conservatives -- whose views are important, well considered and internally consistent --

Could you name a few examples?

--An identity conservative is a person who's primary interest in politics is derived from a desire to justify and rationalize their failure to succeed socially or economically or politically, or, indeed, to have failed at all three.--

Is there anyone here who you do not define as an identity conservative?

boris: if you'd like to characterize me as an identity liberal, or a particularly idiotic liberal or what-have-you, that would be a good start, but you'd be undermining the meme here that asserts liberalism, in general, at large and of-a-piece is a mental illness.

Bubu I have to congratulate you. You called it. I would say projection looks good on you, except it doesn't. Sorry.

But back to the congratulations part, I digressed. You have managed to exceed your both your quota and your all time record for rotten ill considered tripe, and believe me that is saying a lot.

Maybe you should consider small ball instead? You know go back to telling how the police security cam proves Zimmerman was not injured. It wont be any less wrong, and a hell of a lot less embarassing for you.

LUN is not a non sequitir nor is much of anything I write. I suppose that's the real source of angst from the mother's basement brigade.

LUN says the Gates Foundation is giving a $550,000 grant to the NEA foundation. Now where are those old airline barf bags when you need one.

For those of you not aware, Gates is a primary funder of everything having to do with Common Core. At least when you the taxpayer isn't the source of the funding. Chaired by a woman who has written about the need to use education to achieve irreversible change. I do not think she is on board with the way the US political system was set up to work.

It looks to me like all these tech companies funding all these ed initiatives are really just trying to sell more of their products and make sure no one in future is likely to have the knowledge to dethrone their monopoly with dynamic innovation.

I am reading Guy Sorman at the moment and he doesn't think much of MS business practices. Imagine MS dictating and limiting what every American child can know or do.

"He simply refused to answer the question and that was THE END OF THE STORY."

But the Watchdogs of the Fourth Estate were able to tell us his SAT scores and his grades at Yale and Harvard Business. No apparent interest in Obama's, and his innate modesty prevents him from telling us himself.

" An identity conservative is a person who's [sic] primary interest in politics is derived from a desire to justify and rationalize their failure to succeed socially or economically or politically, or, indeed, to have failed at all three."

Rats. I guess that means that the many of us here who have succeeded wildly at all three don't get to be Identity Conservatives.

Ig: I think Tom is a borderline case. Beyond that, I don't know of any commenter here I would not consider an identity conservative. All the regulars I'm aware of make it abundantly clear that their politics makes them feel personally aggrieved and that the aggrievement is their key motivating force in politics.
Such emotional fragility helps explain identity conservatives' tendency to feel more aggrieved than aggrieving, even as their crusade is to afflict liberals. There is a remarkable disparity, for example, between the degree of overt approval identity conservatives crave in order to feel liked and respected and the much greater degree of disapproval one can have toward them and still like and respect them.
As for internally consistent conservatives, I'd cite Edmund Burke and, in some, but not all, areas, William F. Buckley. I almost always disagree with George F. Will but he demonstrates a respect for logic and fact that earns full reciprocation.
David Brooks often delivers spot on criticisms of liberals and liberalism and, thereby, makes a worthy contribution to the mainstream media-level discussions of politics. He is clearly conservative, even if wingnuts can't stand him because he doesn't always toe the party line.
Beyond the individual conservatives I respect and whom I believe contribute positively to our politics and society, I think the idea of limited government is essential, as is the role of a political faction demanding such limits. Likewise, I think it's important to have a political faction that argues for the status quo. Change for it's own sake is naturally appealing and, especially in the entertainment-driven media culture we now live in, old values can easily be dismissed in the absence of a political force that demands their preservation.
Nevertheless, I remain a liberal because I think the fundamental liberal belief in progress is the MOST essential pillar of democratic preservation.
Conservatives have an important, salutary critique of government power, but they don't have important, salutary ideas about how to govern...

Yeah, Extraneus. This is odd, but the "reference" link at the Obamafile - "The "Choom Gang" is a reference to "chooming," the Hawaiian slang for smoking marijuana." - used to go to a blog post on choom. It goes to a bland Chicago Trib article now.
Weird.

An identity conservative is a person who's [sic] primary interest in politics is derived from a desire to justify and rationalize their failure to succeed socially or economically or politically, or, indeed, to have failed at all three.

I guess the tallest odds of all are when no when will even take up your wager. Like on the question of why the "MSM" never made Bush answer the question about whether he used cocaine.
A real conservative would have a good answer and would readily confess that the "MSM" didn't pursue it because they bent over backwards to be fair to Bush and were professional enough to calmly, rationally assess that any such drug use wasn't affecting his ability to run the U.S. and so wasn't relevant enough to warrant full investigation. An identity conservative can't admit that, because their worldview requires a paranoid assessment that the news media is allied against them. To admit that their ideas are simply unpopular is anathema, because their identity is at stake, not merely their political take...

Are you using Firefox, Janet, because they haven't scrubbed that search string there.
We are reminded curiously, who floated this
rumor about W, a Kimberlin type, an attempted
bomber named James Hatfield, whose book was allegedly mulched by St, Martin's Press, but
in actuality was dumped in every public library, far and wide, It was expanded into
an even crazier tome, overseas, with contributions by Saramago, and others,

DoT: There can be no question but that Obama's grades were excellent. He graduated Magna Cum Laude from Harvard.
Bush didn't earn a reputation for stupidity at Harvard, he earned it in elected office by saying stupid things. Obama makes plenty of gaffes, but he clearly is capable of forming clear sentences and expressing thought extemporaneously. Bush was not and while that is not the ONLY measure of intelligence, it's an important one for a president. Moreover, Bush achieved none of the other conventional milestones of intellectual achievement, eg publishing a critically acclaimed and best-selling book or graduating with honors.
Again, a real conservative would simply make the obvious and plainly valid point that above-average intelligence is not the key to being an effective president and that academic achievement is only a crude measure, especially for the special variety of intelligence needed to preside over a major democracy. An identity conservative can't do that, though, because they take criticisms of Bush personally and therefore compulsively defend him on all grounds, no matter how flimsy...

"in" groups almost always have secret languages, Way back in the ancient times we were obscurely legendary on the south coast of Orange County for our perceived exploits, mainly driving fast, drinking a lot, smoking reefer, surfing and getting into minor scrapes.

Some of us are doctors and lawyers now or businessmen. Several went into the military and served honorably. Most of us were never really damaged by the experience. A couple faded away into alcoholism or drug use, but that's another conversation.

It's not Obama's boyhood stupidities that are at issue, but rather the media whitewash. The teenage years are the ones where we make our mistakes, after all.

But the image of our President is one of an immature, irresponsible lightweight. If anyone know the Islands, there is a different standard of education and lifestyle.Punahou and Bishop are the schools for a not very motivated elite.

It is the complete whitewash of Obama's history that offends so deeply. The man simply has not been to any standard with meaning and has voted "present" through his entire life.

He is of no consequence except in his most recent position, where he has managed to do considerable damage to our finances, to our national security, and to our Constitution.

DrJ: indeed there would be a large faction of identity liberals within OWS who come by their politics in more or less the same way identity conservatives do and who show the same pattern of emotional involvement...

Is this a time warp? What the carp does Bush have to do with this thread? I thought The choice this year is between the choomer (who by his own admission used "a little blow") and a guy who doesn't smoke or drink alcohol or caffeine.

--Beyond that, I don't know of any commenter here I would not consider an identity conservative. All the regulars I'm aware of make it abundantly clear that their politics makes them feel personally aggrieved and that the aggrievement is their key motivating force in politics.--

Doesn't every person at some level feel "aggrieved" by the opposition's politics? Conservatives, libertarians and leftists all believe their opponent's politics are harmful to the country and since we are all citizens of the country they are bound to have some harmful effects on us and our families as well, right? And I imagine just abut everyone in all three groups feels a sense of personal aggrievement of policies they disagree with while simultaneously being concerned, often more so, about the effect those policies are having on others, or the country as a whole. I detest welfare not because of any effect it has on me but because of the dependence and distortions it causes in the lives of those induced to accept it.
Your contention however that some sense of personal aggrievement is the "key" motivating force in the politics of anyone here is without foundation. The vast majority of discussions here are of the effect policies will have on the country as a whole or different large blocs within it.
Your entire premise is flawed and is a reflection not in what you observe in others but is what you attribute to them in order to dismiss or avoid their arguments.

--Such emotional fragility helps explain identity conservatives' tendency to feel more aggrieved than aggrieving, even as their crusade is to afflict liberals. There is a remarkable disparity, for example, between the degree of overt approval identity conservatives crave in order to feel liked and respected and the much greater degree of disapproval one can have toward them and still like and respect them.--

This is remarkably vacuous psychobabble by any standard. What evidence is there anyone here is more or less emotionally fragile than those whom you don't label "identity" conservatives?
And what bizarre belief spawns the idea that conservatives crusade to afflict liberals? Doesn't that weird belief reveal precisely the sense of aggrievment you attribute to others?
The last sentence, to the extent it is coherent, is so presumptuous and self serving as to be a fitting punchline to a joke but pretty useless otherwise.

It is irrelevant, except in the sense, that the left will entertain any charge against a center right figure, no matter how ludicrous
and from what source. and will endeavor to obscure any wrongdoing by a center to far left one.

"There can be no question but that Obama's grades were excellent. He graduated Magna Cum Laude from Harvard."

Actually, that was Harvard Law School. We know nothing of his performance as an undergraduate. We do not know what courses he took at HLS, nor the criteria for Magna Cum Laude honors during his era.. We do know that there were affirmative-action slots on the Law Review, and that the presidency of the Review was an elective office. During his time at Harvard and at Chicago he published not a single word of legal scholarship. His Chicago colleagues thought him lazy and intellectually overmatched.

I seriously doubt that Bush--or anyone else--would have ever thought to write a book about himself at age thirty, and one wonders why Obama did. His book ia almost certainly ghost-written, and stands out as the only writing attributed to him that is other than mediocre.

Btw, for all the pot heads here that like to feel good about themselves: You've been supporting Kimberlin and his ilk as much as Lurch and Lovey have. So please continue to toke up and contribute to the vermin. And hector the rest of us.